Submitting liquidity is done by nubot. Just get a grant passed and feed nubot your grant address and itll do it all for you.
You need settings like
daemon=1
server=1
port=9090
rpcport=9091
rpcuser=yourUserGoesHere
rpcpassword=yourPasswordGoesHerein nu.conf and a NuBot configuration according to these parameters.
Exactly!
Please do Nu, me and yourself a favour and donāt offer your services cheaply.
Until friction issues have been sorted out, dynamic offset is available, etc., you might have more work than you like, if you really intend to do all youo can to support the peg.
Your computer needs to be on 24x7, which will create some noise and costs in addition.
As long as gateways or dual side NuBots are available for free (or cheaply), NSR holders are tempted to make the ostensible cheap, but very risky choice of relying on them.
Make a bold offer, it should still be accepted, if NSR holders are wise.
There are times ahead, in which I wonāt be available.
Nu needs a backup!
Fixed cost ALP based on NuBot need to provided with sufficient funding to compensate LP in these pools.
Ostensibl cheap NuBots, run with Nu funds, must not hinder that.
Itās two hours ago since I was last pinging people, alarming about the situation, adjusting NuBot configuration to support Poloniex liquidity.
The orders sized 2,000 and 1,5000 are still pretty much the only ones on the buy side:
nupool buy side is empty:
Believe me, operating with Nu funds at an exchange is more demanding than you might realize before you have started doing it, especially, because itās way off from an emergency solution at the moment - or we are in permanent emergency; I donāt know.
The only good thing is, that it seems to be worth it:
3 Likes
I then have to prepare a grant and ask for a payment. But please give me a hint what would be a proper operator payment
in this situation since i will not use my own funds.
edit: i just checked your grant and āCompensation schemeā 
NuLagoon Tube buy side is cleared on ALix but nothingās changed on the website. Not sure whatās happening.
Polo buy side was gobbled up when thereās a sudden change in BTC/USD; Iām guessing we have given too much arbitrage opportunity.
We just need to find the suit spot between āLPs vs pegā thus everyone will be happy.
Perhaps a higher spread would be a good candidate?
1 Like
NuLagoon is using a different BTC price feed.
Iāve noticed this behaviour when the BTC price is swinging fast, should return to normal when the swing is over.
1 Like
Iām using the default price feed now for NuBot:
bitfinex (with backup feeds: blockchain,bitcoinaverage,coinbase,bitstamp,kraken in order of importance).
First I tried blockchain (blockchain.info), but decided to rather rely on the defaults.
But I donāt think itās related to thec choice of price feed.
My observation of the relation between NBT/BTC and price feeds is:
- the NBT/BTC pair on Poloniex is more or less decoupled to some degree from BTCUSD at other exchanges
- the trading volume on Polniex in the USDT (Tether), coinoUSD and bitUSD BTC pairs is low.
The conclusion:
Poloniex has no BTC/USD.
Other pegged cryptos are not liked (except for USDT to some degree).
NBT is the crypto fiat for traders on Poloniex!
Which leads to big pressure and as a result to deviation from the BTCUSD rate of other exchanges.
3 Likes
We arrived price wise at the line of defense created by the dual side NuBot:
I couldnāt keep the peg any tighter with $20,000 trading volume in the last 2 hours, Iām sorry.
But I could drain some BTC with the asymmetric offset at the sell side gateway:
Wed Jan 20 14:45:06 UTC 2016
status of sell side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv -A 2
"BETwD8nSjtj9ADSvej2na34xmsMYwPRymv" : {
"buy" : 14893.89,
"sell" : 8623.7493
status of buy side gateway:
nud getliquidityinfo B | grep BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP -A 2
"BFGMPykfKxXZ1otrCZcsbnTwJjKHPP9dsP" : {
"buy" : 9342.79,
"sell" : 11919.2544I will change the offset to be symmetric and close to the dual side NuBot formerly known as buy side gateway.
edit:
gee, now I know why: BTCUSD surged above $400ā¦
edit2:
The situation could be stabilized:
Take into account that in total $10,000 on the sell side and $10,000 on buy side are Nu funds:
former buy side gateway (in total $8,000; first line of defense):
Type Price (BTC) Amount (NBT) Total (BTC) Rate/Stop Date Action
Buy 0.00241906 1999.99999905 4.83811999 -- 2016-01-20 15:00:44 Cancel
Buy 0.00242396 2000.00000000 4.84792000 -- 2016-01-20 15:00:44 Cancel
Sell 0.00247788 2000.00000000 4.95576000 -- 2016-01-20 14:59:26 Cancel
Sell 0.00248278 2000.00000000 4.96556000 -- 2016-01-20 14:59:26 Cancelformer sell side gateway (in total $12,000, second line of defense):
Type Price (BTC) Amount (NBT) Total (BTC) Rate/Stop Date Action
Buy 0.00241500 3999.99999830 9.65999999 -- 2016-01-20 15:02:23 Cancel
Buy 0.00241989 2000.00000000 4.83978000 -- 2016-01-20 15:02:23 Cancel
Sell 0.00246877 2000.00000000 4.93754000 -- 2016-01-20 15:01:03 Cancel
Sell 0.00247366 4000.00000000 9.89464000 -- 2016-01-20 15:01:03 Cancel
2 Likes
well, with BTC you can expect anything! 
I expect to break down soon.
2 Likes
Given the current turbulence I think itās good enough to set a high spread (up to 5%?) and call it a day. I canāt help but feel sorry to see you put in so much hard work.
Another thing Iāve just managed to notice is that USDT is treated completely differently on Poloniex; our price display is reversed (i.e. NBT in terms of BTC). Furthermore BTC/USDT also has a 2% spread yet weāre the only one to have a ānon-exact pegā shown on CMC. We need to petition Poloniex to change this status.
One reason you had to work so hard is that NuLagoon has to divert funds to their own exchange. It is not to be condemned but it is important that we align our strategies with this change. The effort is better made to let people make their way to NuLagoon Tube (which is a qualitative difference from ātraditionalā exchanges), otherwise NuLagoonās management fee has no meaning.
Given NuLagoon Tube and the icebreaking of asymmetric ALP rewards, I want all of us to consider reducing BTC operations but keep the NBT walls on Poloniex. If people want to buy a large amount of BTC they should try to find their own way to NuLagoon. We need to aggressively let people know about this so the peg is not considered endangered on Poloniex.
3 Likes
I just canāt as long as I have some power left.
It might be that Iāve found a sweet spot with ~1% offset. That slows trade enough to not let the funds run dry soon, while keeping the peg close to $1.
We still have $18,000 in total on buy side left. That means we sold some BTC, but not very many.
BTC/NBT would be great and shame on CMC for reporting USDT wrong!
Other reasons are
- the T3 custodianship of Nagalim has just started and needs some time to work flawless
- the compensation for ALP is static and would need to be higher in such times (0 BTC on nupool for a long time)
- I have faith in Nu and want it to succeed
Btw. - NuLagoon Tube shows a total of below 20 BTC available - there should be some BTC left in NuLagoon:
That needs to be prepared and aligned by a marketing initiative, but leads into the right direction. Supporting liquidity in NBT/BTC pairs is a great marketing instrument, but very costly and risky.
1 Like
###Liquidity status on Poloniex / dual side NuBots
Done manually, because the broadcast information is not 100% reliable with that much fluctuation.
The log is full of this:
17:29:34.997 [sendLiquidity] WARN - Liquidity is not being sent, a wall shift is happening. Will send on next execution. [c.n.n.t.SubmitLiquidityinfoTask:152]####Manual report
Former sell side gateway:
33.8 BTC ($13,790)
9,735 NBT ($9,735)
$23,525 estimated value
Former buy side gateway:
1.9 BTC ($775)
20,868 NBT ($20,868)
$21,643 estimated value
In total
35.7 BTC ($14,565)
30,603 NBT ($30,603)
$45,168 estimated value
The 24h trading volume on Poloniex alone is close to $70,000 - most of it in the recent hours. Operating the NuBots at an offset at 1% or slightly above allowed to keep the peg without getting the funds drained completely on one side during the swings.
Overall the peg was kept quite closely.
3 Likes
You think an offset close to 1.5% will be more appropriate in such swings?
edit: MoD, you really donāt ever sleep? Are you an A.I. or something? 
I think you should quit your job and be hired by NU! (not kidding here)
1 Like
TL;DR
1.5% is too much, maybe 1.2% or 1.3% - ideally market aware offsets that increase due to trading volume and BTC volatility
I sleep from time to time
Donāt I already work enough for Nu? 
/TL;DR
An offset of 1% for the first line of defense was almost suffcient.
It could not prevent to keep the BTC on one NuBot drained down to 1.9 BTC (but not emptied!), but in the walls of the NuBot with the even bigger offset was rarely sold.
An offset of 1.5% would be perceived as quite off. We need market aware offsets to enable that.
What Iām going to talk here now is a paradigm shift that can technically be achieved by market aware offset adjustments (which is on the road map of NuBot development).
With less volatility, the offset can be lower. With huge voaltility, it needs to be increased.
It would be neat to have a feedback loop between the offset and the volume that is traded by the bots.
If you still sell at an offset of 2%, you should do it and increase the offset. If you donāt increase the offset further, you will get the side drained, before anybody can refill it and the peg is lost anyway.
You have sold the product cheaper than you could have. And increasig the offset buys time, slows down the trades if the traders are aware of the offset. If they donāt, their bad.
That doesnāt perfectly match the vision of Nu with high quality products, which keep the peg.
The question is: do you really need to offer a product, that is worth exactly the same at any time? Or might it be appropriate to have an uplift for panic buyings?
As long as you can ensure to buy back 1 US-NBT for 1 USD in normal times, the perception of that product should be good.
This is conceptually heading in the direction of the motion to create a new Tier 6 (Restricted Network Access) liquidity, but from a slightly different angle.
If traders know that during very turbulent times the peg isnāt necessarily as close as during normal times, they canāt complain about an increased offset.
An offset between 1% and 1.5% would have been ideal. Seems like Iām still learning.
A current status of the Poloniex accounts can be found here:
I sleep as soon as the liquidity situation is better. We havenāt worked for so long and so hard to lose the peg due to Bitcoin rollercoaster!
Wait a second - that āAā stands for artificial, right? 
Then Iām rather something!
Iām very glad if I can leave this time in which I think, Iām keeping the peg at Poloniex (I might be totally off with that assessment; maybe the trade is mostly done by bots and they would just stop beyond a certain offsetā¦) by keeping a close eye on liquidity, adjusting the offsets of the NuBots to balance the funds, increasing the spread if a rollercoaster begins, etc. behind me.
Itās tiring. Itās exhausting and like I explained above (in the brackets), Iām not even sure, itās necessary.
As long as I believe, itās worth it (and have some power left), I try to endure, hoping for T3 custodians and fixed cost scheme for ALP to ease the situation.
I believe as interim solution, a band-aid solution until T3 could be ramped up (we only have one custodian at the moment), dual side NuBots operated with Nu funds are a simple and efficient way, albeit a risky one. Itās the only one that is agile enough at the moment, in my opinion.
My motion to permit dual side NuBots on Poloniex is not exactly on its way to passing
although I havenāt found very controversial comments in the thread.
Why should NSR holders vote for it?
They currently have it for free (and not only the first 45 days) and if things go pear-shaped, they can blame me for not having followed the termsā¦
edit:
I should point out that Iām doing something completely different at the moment than just offering a dual side NuBot with a static offset.
It might be coincidence, but since I started managing the NuBots very actively (turning on one gateway, then the other, turning them into dual side with asymmetric spread to balance sides, adjusting the offset to find a balance between keeping the peg and preserving funds, etc.), we didnāt need any deposit from FLOT.
Had I run them as gateway, we would have put funds in the one, then in the other, etc., while I wouldnāt have been able to withdraw all funds in between.
Weād have ended up in basically the same risky situation with funds on exchange, but without the benefit of having them available for liquidity operations.
The motion about dual side NuBots is dealing with quite passively operating them.
Thatās something different.
Anyway, would that I could have experienced the last days before I put the motion up for voting.Iād have adjusted the offset from 0.007 to 0.009 or 0.01.
It has proved to be quite nice to have two NuBots. Terminating and restarting them takes a while and during that time, the other one keeps its orders up.
Iām looking forward to the time, when e.g. the offset can be adjusted without stopping NuBot!
4 Likes
Water level report
No buy side on nupool ALP:
But all-clear so far; in total $10,000 funds from Nu are keeping the peg on buy side (as well as on sell side) with a big offset.
More details can be found here:
and here:
The 24h trading volume at Poloniex NBT/BTC pair is close to $100,000:
The price of NBT is recorded as almost exactly $1:
1 Like
So overall, alone, you created 100k of trade volume with a perfect peg.
Furthermore, you increased the spread significantly compared to last time when btc underwent a huge fluctuation and yet the peg was kept.
So that means you could protect Nu fund while keeping the peg.
Very impressive.
Another thing: it means also that almost no traders decided to buy btcs a high spreads.
2 Likes
I was not the only one trading there, or rather having traded there. I might find a precise answer in the trade logs, but Iām confident that the trading volume was not alone by the NuBots (and their trading partners).
Without an increase offset, the funds would have been drained to fast, causing an emergency deposit by FLOT or JordanLee. It seems safe to say that I could prevent that for some time.
If they hadnāt bought into orders with big offsets, the funds would still be untouched, yet they arenāt.
And I have no other explanation for this:
Sounds like mOD is single-handedly dealing with transient Nu crisis on Polo. Kudos to him.
Crisis means opportunities:
- to bring more LPs on Polo
- to recognize the need and vote for dual side nubots
- to bring T3 custodians asap
- to think about alternatives and perhaps trigger a paradigm shift as suggested
- to think about the need of supporting liquidity in NBT/BTC
2 Likes
Thatās not true, FLOT was involved in it as well and deposited funds there.
But at least there were no other LPs with that I could discuss the course of action.
That meant the opportunity to learn much about liquidity operation and offset of orders, which lead me to the conclusion a 1% offset might nut be the worst idea.
Had other LP played a significant role, or had I had the opportunity to share load with them, I might not have reqconized this.
As soon as the offset was big enough, it slowed down trading with Nu funds, while still keeping the peg.
Iām sure that nupool ALP was present with funds there from time to time.
Only I donāt know about NuLagoon.
Speaking of ALP you need a better incentive for such Bitcoin rollercoaster times. 7.2% per month just doesnāt compensate 15% loss in 48 hours. Fixed cost will help.
I could try to make that need visible by turning the current ones off. I donāt intend to.
The first one, Nagalim, is here! Only Iām not aware of a single deal he made and I havenāt checked his BTC and NBT addresses to be sure there was none.[quote=ācrypto_coiner, post:1211, topic:1239ā]
think about alternatives and perhaps trigger a paradigm shift as suggested
[/quote]
Iād be happy to find a (controversial?) discussion about that.
There isnāt even one about me abusing gateway funds to do what I doā¦
The clever combination of market aware offsets (for that ALP receive compensation) AND market aware compensation might achieve to always have a first line of peg defense by ALP.
Market aware offsets reduce the hedging risks, which supposedly played a significant role in finding nupoolās side (especially the BTC side) empty.
Market are compensation increases the incentive to provide liquidity.
But the NuBot version supporting that is a bit away (in terms of road map)
1 Like